In 30 pictures describing “pistols that are not assault weapons,” the NY SAFE web site incorrectly identifies 6 of 30 handguns presented by name, and 16 of 30 by type.

Neither gun is a pistol. The GP 100 is misidentified as an LCR, and the LCR as a GP 100.

16 of the 30 handguns presented are revolvers, not pistols. Of the pistols they do include, they can’t get their names right.

Beretta makes a pistol called the “Nano” that looks very much like the BU9.

In the slideshow labeled “Images of rifles that are not classified as assault rifles,” the photos mislabel rifles brands by the cartridges they fire; “Springfield 30-06” and “Winchester .308” open the presentation, and fail to even get that right getting the cartridge name order reversed.

After deeming this rifles “good,” Cuomo Andrew celebrated by listening to some Springsteen Bruce and a little Joel Billy at the Governor’s Office in New York Albany.

NY SAFE serially confuses a rifle’s caliber with its model, and worse, can’t tell the basic difference between a rifle and a shotgun…

The Marlin 795 is a small semiautomatic .22 rifle. NY SAFE included a photo of a pump action shotgun.

… a hunting rifle and a variant of a World War II-era Russian submachine gun…

The bottom firearm is not anything ever made by Browning, and appears to be a visual derivative of the Russian PPsH submachine gun.

…or tell the difference between a weapons that are legal, yet function identically as “evil assault weapons”…

The Mini-14 NY SAFE says isn’t an assault rifle fires the same ammunition, from similar 30-round magazines, at the same rate of fire, as an AR-15.

… and we’re supposed to take them seriously? It would be laughable, other than the fact that if you mistake the NY SAFE Act web site a being a competent guide, you could end up in prison for violating the NY SAFE Act since the Web site and the actual law have very little in common.

You don’t have to be ignorant, opportunistic, clueless and vicious to go into politics in New York, but it sure helps.

I have no use whatever for Andrew Cuomo and his gun-grabbing gang, and I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph: “No wonder so many New Yorkers are expected to ignore NY SAFE. It’s a law, passed by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing other than a desire to meddle in things they clearly do not understand.”

If I lived in NY, I’d never comply with that law.

However, there are times when insisting on correct terminology is helpful for gun owners and times when it isn’t.

If we insist that a revolver isn’t a pistol, to nearly everyone we’re trying to convince, we’re simply going to look silly. For 99.9% of the populace, revolver = handgun = pistol.

The distinctions between these are real and important at some level. But I think it’s best that in public discussions with non-gunowners that we don’t focus our arguments around distinctions that will be invisible or irrelevant to the average person.

In other words, there’s a time and a place to make the distinction between pistol and revolver — and this probably isn’t that time or place.

To make an effective “uphill” argument to people who think you’re half-weird anyway, it’s better to talk to them in their language than to insist that they speak yours correctly.

I don’t think we want to open our arguments with terminological distinctions that strike non-gunowners as hairsplitting. The clip/magazine distinction, while real, is another example where I think we come off as weird, cranky, or obsessive.

Saying this message bluntly here may rile a lot a readers. But I think that a good part of any PR battle lies in using the words of the enemy to achieve your own purposes. At this stage of the public fracas, demanding that the public “speak gun” correctly is, I’m convinced, counter-productive to the bigger picture. (It also paints us as an intolerant pack of schoolmarms, lecturing everyone on the difference of “lie” and lay” for example.) (And yes, there is an important difference there, and nearly everybody screws it up.) (Feel like tuning me out, yet?) (Well, there you go.)

Instead, let’s educate the public about the Second Amendment, the history of firearms in this country, their contribution over the centuries to freedom and liberty here and in the world, and finally encourage them to get out and try shooting sports — even if it’s only archery. (Archery, the gateway drug…. Who knew?)

Let me just add a point that may get overlooked. I think it’s entirely appropriate that we clobber the Gang of Cuomo publicly when they misidentify makes and models of guns in their illustrated guide to what’s legal and what isn’t.

Those are strong arguments that these clowns don’t know what they are doing.

But beating them over the head because they call revolvers pistols isn’t, in the eyes of the public, a strong argument against the law. So I’m recommending we quietly drop that angle of attack and go for ones where any ordinary citizen can see the good sense in what we say.

The term pistol has been around since about 1560. It predates the revolver by centuries. Insisting the term pistol does not include revolvers as well as semi-auto pistols is not only a recent affectation, it is inaccurate.

Please. I am very happy to let them ban guns that do not exist, such as the “Browning ShortTrac 270”. I think we make a mistake by pointing out to them, over and over again, that they don’t know what they’re talking about. Let them stumble about and write an unenforceable law. They’ll feel better and will go on to whatever nutball idea they come up with next and nothing will have really changed.

When the government desires to ban certain specific guns, it is entirely legitimate to point out they don’t know what they are talking about. Speaking “gun” gets real important when these idiots are going to pick and choose which weapons they want to outlaw. This is a great article that reveals this legislation was thrown together carelessly.

Militias are already forming (or solidifying) all over the state. That kind of thing happens when you turn fiercely independent, loyal, law abiding citizens (many of whom are veterans) into felons for executing their God Given Rights.

Happened in 1775/6, too.

This idiot Governor has no idea what he has done – the simmering tensions he has brought to a boil. He will be the symbol for all that went wrong in the coming years.

Ok, usually I defer to experts like Bob but I’m going to call foul on the revolver/pistol nonsense. It is akin to the all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. All (well nearly all, I recall something about a revolving rifle back in the 1800s) revolvers are pistols but not all pistols are revolvers. According to Websters: Pistol with a revolving cylinder that provides multishot action. Some early versions, known as pepperboxes, had several barrels, but as early as the 17th century pistols were being made with a revolving chamber to load cartridges into a single barrel. The first practical revolver was not designed until 1835, when Samuel Colt patented his version. He established the standard of a cylinder with multiple chambers, each of which successively locked in position behind the barrel and was discharged by pressure on the trigger. In Colt’s early single-action revolvers, the cylinder revolved as the hammer was cocked manually. Double-action revolvers, in which the hammer is cocked and the cylinder revolves as the trigger is pulled, were developed soon afterward, along with metal cartridges.